User talk:James R. Ward/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Another answer or three
ping another answer. // Fra nkB 18:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack. Thank you, Frank.  Jim Ward (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Floating a table along the right margin under an image?
I'm unable to find a way to float a table along the right margin underneath an image at the beginning of this article I'm editing. If I put the table ahead of the image, both appear along the right margin (desired). In its present form, though, the table appears to the left of the image at the top of the piece. What have I missed? Thanks in advance. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 07:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to let you know, I fix it for you and I hope this is what you wanted us to do. Talk to you soon--  Michael  (Talk) 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Michael. This is helpful and uses a solution of which I hadn't thought.  It gives rise to a question, though: if I want to keep the two objects separate — the image, followed by the table, each glued to the right margin — is this possible?  I intuit that it is, because when the table comes first, the page appearance is as desired (save, obviously, for the fact that I don't wan't the table first!).  Is there some alternative to align=right that would glue the table to the right margin and place it underneath the image? Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome... Nope, you have to keep them together. You can not have the two objects separate.. otherwise, You will have the same problem. Remember, wean doing a table with a image. To have the image within the table itself and at the top of the table. Like the way I fix it for you. :)--  Michael  (Talk) 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! That is an interesting problem - I have made one change that eliminates the multiple borders, that is probably the best I can think of! On the question of internal links to old page versions, nope, you can only link to them by external links as far as I have been able to determine! Hope that all helps! - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this and for the mods to my sandbox page. I thought I was trying to do something rather simple and am surprised that the Wikimedia software doesn't accommodate it more easily than the stacked table solution.  Nonetheless, that's what I'll do to make it work.  Thanks also for the answer about wikilinks to old versions.  Best regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jim, thanks for your new note! What I did was eliminate the "thumb" notation, which removes the double "thumbnail border". Unfortunately thumbnails include the caption capability, but sized, non-thumbnail images don't! So I added the caption back as colspan (column span) row. It doesn't look too bad. Wikimedia is supposed to use a simplified mark-up language that the software converts into XHTML when you hit "save". If you look a the page's source code (Ctrl+U in most browsers) you will see it displays XHTML strict, not wiki mark-up! The problem is that in simplifying things they have removed some of the flexibility in XHTML and at the same time I am not sure it is that much simpler! I guess the main problem is that if we wrote actual XHTML we would need to be able to write the CSS as well and that would be too wild a result!


 * While we are talking about external links to pages, here is another trick: you can also create a link (external only) to show someone else a specific change to a page, like this, which shows you what I last did to your sandbox page. - Ahunt (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Assist America entry
Jim,

Here is what you wrote regarding the deletion of Assist America with my responses/commentary in bold.

I've tagged this page for speedy deletion. Please note that it was speedily deleted once before for advertising under criterion G11 and I made revisions to my article so that it would not fall into the "blatant advertising" criterion. I've used the same criterion on this tag because:

(1) No notability is asserted or implied."no notability is asserted or implied" because then the article would become a promotional advertising piece and would immediately be deleted  The mere existence of a company does not assert sufficient notability to warrant an article about it. See WP:N and WP:CORP. If "the mere existence of a company does not assert sufficient notability to warrant an article about it", then what is the justification for a page about International SOS? (2) This article serves solely to promote the company. See WP:ADVERT. This article serves solely to inform the public about travel assistance services, especially in the United States where many people are not aware that these services even exist (3) The article thus has no apparent encyclopedic value. See WP:NOT. Please define "encyclopedic value" (4) These comments and my Speedy tag are informed by the observation that the author, User:gb80 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), appears to be a single purpose account who, save for a minor and unrelated edit, exists to forward the business of Assist America and International SOS. That is a false accusation, a blind assumption and I take that as a personal attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb80 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear gb80: Zowee.  I'll respond to each of your comments in a moment, but first:  In reading your message above and looking over your Wikipedia activity, I intuit that you have a substantial interest in both promoting Assist America and seeing International SOS (a competitor?) get relegated to the trash heap.  Please forgive me if I stumble a bit here, as I have just a little experience dealing with editors having such apparent conflict of interest.  Should I put my foot in my mouth, I sincerely apologize.  Now, into the breach:


 * You acknowledge in (1) that the subject has no notability. Advertising is not a source of notability in Wikiland.  Secondary-source coverage can be if it meets certain criteria.  Other attributes can create notability, too; you assert none of that in the Assist America article.  So, this should be a conversation-stopper right here.  No notability means no article.  It's one of the tenets under which our community operates.


 * You acknowledge in (2) that the article serves to inform the public. Do you mean, as a public service or charitable outreach?  If so, Wikipedia is not a medium for public service announcements.  I read this remark to say, the article serves to advertise our services.


 * I'm going to leave (3) as an exercise for you: How do you define encyclopedic merit?  Does your definition align with Wikipedia policies and community standards?  Have you read Verrai's reply to you when you complained about the original deletion of Assist America on February 6?  There's a lot of meat on that bone.


 * Re, (4), seriously? Everything we do here is public. Everyone (and I mean everyone) can see it.  Articles we create, edit, nominate for deletion; commentary left on our talk pages by other editors, everything.  This includes complete contribution history.  You created your account on February 6, created the Assist America article and found it deleted the same day.  You kvetched at Verrai, waited a few weeks or so and recreated it. (It was created and deleted in the interim for the same CSD-G11 criteria.)  Meanwhile, you made an innocuous deletion in an unrelated article that was later reverted by another editor.  You blanked the International SOS article, which was quickly reverted by another editor.  When that didn't work you nominated it for speedy deletion (contrary to WP:CSD policy), which was declined.  I don't really need to recite this, do I?  Your contribution history strongly suggests that you're a WP:SPA that exists to forward the business of Assist America.


 * If you think your article was deleted contrary to Wikipedia policies, I encourage you to plead your case directly to the deleting administrator, User:Athaenara.


 * Finally, I appreciate that you have the energy to pursue matters like this. I hope you consider redirecting it toward making worthwhile contributions to the project in the future.  Regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ascot Christadelphian Ecclesia
James you have noted my entry that I have just commenced under the title Ascot Christadelphian Ecclesia. I would rather my entry remained seperate from the main christadelphian article. Although meetings are connected through a common adherance in beliefs, each meeting (ecclesia) is autonomous, ir not controlled by a central hierarchy. Therefore each meeting has its own particular characteristics and dynamics, I would therefore like to record the particular development and services available at Ascot Ecclesia.

Greygrump (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Greygrump, and thanks for writing back. The reason for my merger proposal is that your article will likely be deleted because its subject does not possess the sufficient notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  It has also turned into somewhat of an announcement, which is at odds with item #5, here.  I'm only trying to save you some time and the frustration that's likely to result from seeing your work disappear.  I'm hardly the final authority on this matter; other editors will have a chance to weigh in, too.  I'd encourage you to look at Wikipedia's policies on notability, verifiability and what Wikipedia is not.  Regards, Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Kayleighlewis
I noticed you reverted the subject user's blanking of her own talk page, citing vandalism. I'm not going to revert it since you restored my warnings; however, per WP:TPG, users may freely remove content from their own talk page; removal of warnings is interpreted to mean that the user has read the warning. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Right you are. Sorry to have jumped the gun there.  Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

G limits
Hi Jim

It's important to cite references for things and your idea of regularly pulling +/-10g is simply not supported by any ref I can find. ( I also say this as an an aerobatic rated pilot). While a few planes can be stressed to -10g the pilot never goes that far... I've left a ref with actual measurements in in the aerobatics talk page. Please have a look and reedit the piece -or use my suggested text. +10g is seen in air racing -but that is not aerobatics. In any case, I can't see why any competing aero pilot would want to start to grey out as that would blow the required manouver precision. Cheers MarkCMarkC 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the note, Mark. I've replied on the Talk:Aerobatics page.  Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

cc'd from aerobsticstalk: J+D, How about this. In the lede we describe how the rapid changes in direction lead to high forces on plane and pilot. This means that aero. planes must be structurally stronger and we give typical structural g-limits for both normal and aerobatic planes. Don't forget glider aeros. Then describe how pulling a loop requires about 3.5g in a (say) an aerobat or citabria/decathalon which is close to the limit for a normal cat plane (+4g). We note that more extreme manouvers and faster planes require higher forces. in a new section called perfomance, we describe phsyiological conditing reuired for top pilots and planes. I've found a good research paper [2] that describes changes in VO2 and HR during measured g excursions in experienced pilots in CAP 10 and CAP231 aircraft. We also desribe why/how aero planes are different. Finally we talk cerification requirements? Any other ideas or shall we divvy these tasks up? Cheers MarkC 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) MarkC (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark, I've answered on the Talk:Aerobatics page. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)